6 ms·

Maybe it'll force Hollywood to pay actors far far less. Harrison Ford was paid somewhere between 10 and 25 million (probably towards the lower end of that scale

Maybe it'll force Hollywood to pay actors far far less. Harrison Ford was paid somewhere between 10 and 25 million (probably towards the lower end of that scale). Flipping the question a little bit, how do you justify paying actors 40 million for a movie if they're being streamed online for $5 a pop? I'm of the belief that the better actors are paid far too much and that releasing cinema to streaming services will correctly adjust the price of new release films. For context I watched the force awakens last night at iMax (premium recliner chairs which was nice!) for $43. But you can't see a movie in Australia for less than about $23 these days. We're directly funding hollywood's lifestyle.

munificent 11y ago
> Flipping the question a little bit, how do you justify paying actors 40 million for a movie if they're being streamed online for $5 a pop? This is basic supply and demand. Harrison Ford has a monopoly on Harrison Ford, so if you want Harrison Ford, you have to pay what Harrison Ford wants for it.
- jmathai 11y ago
  There are 2 sides to the transaction and it comes down to margins. If the margins don't exist to pay Harrison Ford $40M then either he takes less $ or another actor is found.
  - ponyous 11y ago
    Or the movie doesn't happen and we will see movies of lower quality because of that in coming years?
    - knicholes 11y ago
      We end up with YouTube?
    - corin_ 11y ago
      If the industry shifts to paying its top stars smaller but still large sums of money then maybe Harrison Ford won't accept that, but the best actors in the next generation who weren't used to getting paid todays rates will.
    - qbrass 11y ago
      The original Star Wars did okay using no-name actors instead of paying Harrison Ford $10 million just to show up.
      - cageface 11y ago
        But they paid Alec Guinness very handsomely for his role.
      - davidgay 11y ago
        Though it did do ok paying Harrison Ford to (not just) show up.
    - marcosdumay 11y ago
      Well, I wouldn't jump so fast to the conclusion that those movies would be of lower quality.
  - kbutler 11y ago
    >Or the movie doesn't happen and we will see movies of lower quality because of that in coming years? Hard to imagine how that would be possible...
- jsmeaton 11y ago
  Exactly, supply and demand. He demanded what the studio could afford to pay. If the movie is no longer generating so much revenue (because streaming) then actors will no longer be able to (successfully) demand 8 figure payments. I think some of the low to medium budget movies will make the transition to simultaneous streaming releases where it may be easier to recoup money early on. This may or may not force a similar thing to happen with big budget films, but too many lifestyles would be affected for this to happen in any short to medium term.
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    If the movie is no longer generating so much revenue (because streaming) then actors will no longer be able to (successfully) demand 8 figure payments. Pretty much what happened to authors of novels.
    - zanny 11y ago
      Were publishing companies hiring authors for millions of dollars? I know authors usually use publishers for review / editing / publication, but I'm not aware of a time where the relationship was not "publisher gets X% cut of revenue". When was it "author gets X million dollars"? The same applies to music. Pretty much every creative industry outside film is paying the performers or creators a percentage of sales. Its just harder for that to scale to endeavors that take thousands of people like modern blockbusters.
      - lmm 11y ago
        Publishing customers were at least sometimes paying million-dollar advances (which I appreciate isn't quite the same thing).
      - cthalupa 11y ago
        Lump sum payments are not at all uncommon when it comes to ghostwriting. (Royalties aren't rare either, but a lump sum agreement isn't eyebrow raising in the least)
      - 11y ago
- losteric 11y ago
  Maybe this will give all the not-Harrison Fords a better chance. A lot of the A list is about hiring tried and true great actors... but you can get 80% of Harrison Ford for much less than 80% of his current asking price. Much like making music, filming technology is already commoditized at the entry level... it's distribution costs that remain high (hard to reach a large audience without massive ad $$, known actors, and an established publisher). Netflix would seriously disrupt that, boosting "indie" film making in the same way that Spotify / youtube / myspace / etc seriously boosted non-mainstream music. We still have A-list musicians but the long tail is seeing far more success than before.
  - frandroid 11y ago
    Netflix has paid Kevin Spacey his price, anyway, so the point is kind of moot.
  - petra 11y ago
    >> filming technology is already commoditized at the entry level But Indie music is better in the personal preference category and usually no worse in production values. And on the other hand what we see in regular tv: we see increasing abundance of content , and most people flocking more and more to the highly rated content which usually has high production values and often some measure of high brand. That's probably because they don't want to risk an hour of their time. On the other hand , listening to a new song ? who cares if it's bad - it's only a minute to switch to something else , and it's a social custom too.
- ipsin 11y ago
  What you're saying is true, but it's also interesting to me that studios could potentially get by with less. Young Harrison Ford in the late 1970s might have been willing to trade away the use of his likeness in future Star Wars films for a relatively small consideration. In the future, if a studio can find a relatively unknown actor who wants the work, it's possible they could do with a digitally-produced likeness, in case the original actor doesn't want the job. (Sort of an augmented version of the SNL contract)
  - appleflaxen 11y ago
    SNL?
    - throwaway049 11y ago
      A long term 'gold handcuffs' deal for new performers http://observer.com/1999/08/snl-s-killer-contract/ http://observer.com/1999/08/snl-s-killer-contract/
kearneyandy 11y ago
For some sources on Harrison Ford Variety claims 10 - 20 million http://variety.com/2015/film/news/harrison-ford-star-wars-pay-force-awakens-cast-1201666236/ http://variety.com/2015/film/news/harrison-ford-star-wars-pa... Sydney Morning Herald had an article says that it would be $34 million if it breaks $1 billion gross earnings (which is likely). http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/star-wars-the-force-awakens-pay-deal-for-harrison-ford-is-out-of-this-world-20151222-glsxx4.html http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/star-wars-the-for...
jrochkind1 11y ago
> Maybe it'll force Hollywood to pay actors far far less. Harrison Ford was paid somewhere between 10 and 25 million Probably a bad example, because the studio's investment in Harrison Ford in SW:TFA will surely be repaid many times over, and isn't really threatened by netflix.
- jsmeaton 11y ago
  Of course it will, because of really high ticket prices and they're providing a product that many people want. If ticket prices were lower though, Ford wouldn't be able to ask for that kind of money. Not many films can generate this kind of demand though, yet we're all stuck with high ticket prices for lower quality films.
LordKano 11y ago
I'm of the belief that the better actors are paid far too much The market decides these things. It's difficult to argue that there isn't enough profit on a movie that has grossed over 1.5 billion dollars in three weeks to pay A-list actors A-list salaries. A-list actors don't make that kind of money because movie studios are generous. They make it because their presence puts butts in seats. Sure, the "Star Wars" name would be enough to put butts in seats but without Ford, Fisher and Hamil, this movie would have made less money. If I'm not being forced to pay it, I don't care what someone else makes.
- zanny 11y ago
  Would the movie have lost more than the amount they paid him, though? I'm pretty sure they could have released a blank tape on the screen, called it Star Wars 7, and made several hundred million dollars. Its hard to approximate the amount of sales exclusively to the presence of a specific actor, versus the reviews, ratings, and social response to good acting.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    Obviously, no one knows for sure but let's say that 1% of the people who went to see it would have opted out if the original stars hadn't returned... In three weeks, that is over 15 million dollars just where it's been released so far. Think about China and the rest of Asia. Think about on demand viewing and DVD/Blu-Ray. As I said, we don't know for sure but it's a pretty safe bet that Ford, Fisher and Hamil being a part of this movie will pay for itself in increased revenue.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- jsmeaton 11y ago
  > The market decides these things Right, and I think the market is unfairly inflated at the moment, and has been for a long time. Movie ticket prices have more than doubled in the last ~ 10 years. The presence of streaming new blockbuster movies is likely to disrupt the traditional cinema if it is allowed to get off the ground. And that's basically the point I'm trying to make. If movies were to transition into the Steam model where the cost is brought down but has higher reach, the gross is going to go down, and so should the marketing and actor budgets of such films. > If I'm not being forced to pay it, I don't care what someone else makes. Yes, going to the cinema is optional, no one is forcing you to go. But if you want to see a movie within 3-6 months of release you have to pay the cinema ticket price. There is no other option. I don't care how much the actors make, I care how much I pay at the ticket box, which appears to be viciously increasing cycle of actor demands more -> prices go up -> more gross is made -> actor demands more. To account for this, studios are spending more and more on advertising to get people to actually go to the cinema, further driving ticket prices up. And it's the non blockbuster movies that are going to fail. Ticket price is $x regardless of the quality of the movie. The blockbuster budgets are going to price the smaller movies out. No one is going to pay $25 to see something they might enjoy but doesn't have the kind of budget to warrant a cinema viewing. Streaming services that offer these kinds of movies at release date I think will bring the whole scam crashing down.
macspoofing 11y ago
I'm not worried about actor salaries. Big budget epics cost lots of money to make outside of actor salaries because hundreds of professionals work on them for years, usually on location. I guess I like a world where a $300 million Lord of the Rings trilogy exists. It's not necessary but I like it.
mongrol 11y ago
Yeah you can. I was in a cinema last week in Maloolaba for $9. Brisbane has 3 low cost cinemas around the same price, one in Southbank in the city. Just avoid event cinemas and support your local indies.
rhizome 11y ago
You're directly funding the lifestyles of everybody involved in everything you buy. I don't see this as a negative. That said, the studio will probably get at least half of each of those $5, and I've known people who think absolutely nothing of renting movies for $5 multiple times per day, literally no cognitive difference between picking some $5 movie on iTunes and choosing another one on Netflix. Multiply that, e.g. 1% * $global, and pretty soon you're talking about real money for everybody. $10-25million is nothing to pay an actor with a main part in a movie that may make $5 billion dollars for the studio.
lorenzhs 11y ago
Wow, $43 (or even $23) is crazy. I just checked, in my city (in Germany) Star Wars costs 13€ (AU$20), and that's the English version in 3D with shutter glasses. "Normal" movies (no 3D, no excess length) are 7-8€ (AU$11-12.50). That's like... half of what you pay. Is Australia generally that expensive? :O
- gambiting 11y ago
  Just checked in Poland, and 3D version in English(with subtitles) is 25PLN per regular ticket, so around ~6.2USD. IMAX version is 28PLN so about 7USD.
- davegardner 11y ago
  $43 is for a VIP type experience - smaller number of big reclining arm chairs, food and drinks delivered to your seat throughout the movie, etc. Similar to the difference between an economy and business class seat on an airline. At the big-chain theatre that I saw Star Wars, the "standard" price for a non-3D movie is $19.50. However it's very easy to get discounted prices for any movie. I paid $12.50 for my ticket, booked it online a few minutes before I left home. I'm quite sure that the extra dollars paid for the $43 movie ticket was going to the movie theatre, not Hollywood.

munificent 11y ago

> Flipping the question a little bit, how do you justify paying actors 40 million for a movie if they're being streamed online for $5 a pop? This is basic supply and demand. Harrison Ford has a monopoly on Harrison Ford, so if you want Harrison Ford, you have to pay what Harrison Ford wants for it.

jmathai 11y ago
There are 2 sides to the transaction and it comes down to margins. If the margins don't exist to pay Harrison Ford $40M then either he takes less $ or another actor is found.
- ponyous 11y ago
  Or the movie doesn't happen and we will see movies of lower quality because of that in coming years?
  - knicholes 11y ago
    We end up with YouTube?
  - corin_ 11y ago
    If the industry shifts to paying its top stars smaller but still large sums of money then maybe Harrison Ford won't accept that, but the best actors in the next generation who weren't used to getting paid todays rates will.
  - qbrass 11y ago
    The original Star Wars did okay using no-name actors instead of paying Harrison Ford $10 million just to show up.
    - cageface 11y ago
      But they paid Alec Guinness very handsomely for his role.
    - davidgay 11y ago
      Though it did do ok paying Harrison Ford to (not just) show up.
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Well, I wouldn't jump so fast to the conclusion that those movies would be of lower quality.
- kbutler 11y ago
  >Or the movie doesn't happen and we will see movies of lower quality because of that in coming years? Hard to imagine how that would be possible...
jsmeaton 11y ago
Exactly, supply and demand. He demanded what the studio could afford to pay. If the movie is no longer generating so much revenue (because streaming) then actors will no longer be able to (successfully) demand 8 figure payments. I think some of the low to medium budget movies will make the transition to simultaneous streaming releases where it may be easier to recoup money early on. This may or may not force a similar thing to happen with big budget films, but too many lifestyles would be affected for this to happen in any short to medium term.
- stcredzero 11y ago
  If the movie is no longer generating so much revenue (because streaming) then actors will no longer be able to (successfully) demand 8 figure payments. Pretty much what happened to authors of novels.
  - zanny 11y ago
    Were publishing companies hiring authors for millions of dollars? I know authors usually use publishers for review / editing / publication, but I'm not aware of a time where the relationship was not "publisher gets X% cut of revenue". When was it "author gets X million dollars"? The same applies to music. Pretty much every creative industry outside film is paying the performers or creators a percentage of sales. Its just harder for that to scale to endeavors that take thousands of people like modern blockbusters.
    - lmm 11y ago
      Publishing customers were at least sometimes paying million-dollar advances (which I appreciate isn't quite the same thing).
    - cthalupa 11y ago
      Lump sum payments are not at all uncommon when it comes to ghostwriting. (Royalties aren't rare either, but a lump sum agreement isn't eyebrow raising in the least)
    - 11y ago
losteric 11y ago
Maybe this will give all the not-Harrison Fords a better chance. A lot of the A list is about hiring tried and true great actors... but you can get 80% of Harrison Ford for much less than 80% of his current asking price. Much like making music, filming technology is already commoditized at the entry level... it's distribution costs that remain high (hard to reach a large audience without massive ad $$, known actors, and an established publisher). Netflix would seriously disrupt that, boosting "indie" film making in the same way that Spotify / youtube / myspace / etc seriously boosted non-mainstream music. We still have A-list musicians but the long tail is seeing far more success than before.
- frandroid 11y ago
  Netflix has paid Kevin Spacey his price, anyway, so the point is kind of moot.
- petra 11y ago
  >> filming technology is already commoditized at the entry level But Indie music is better in the personal preference category and usually no worse in production values. And on the other hand what we see in regular tv: we see increasing abundance of content , and most people flocking more and more to the highly rated content which usually has high production values and often some measure of high brand. That's probably because they don't want to risk an hour of their time. On the other hand , listening to a new song ? who cares if it's bad - it's only a minute to switch to something else , and it's a social custom too.
ipsin 11y ago
What you're saying is true, but it's also interesting to me that studios could potentially get by with less. Young Harrison Ford in the late 1970s might have been willing to trade away the use of his likeness in future Star Wars films for a relatively small consideration. In the future, if a studio can find a relatively unknown actor who wants the work, it's possible they could do with a digitally-produced likeness, in case the original actor doesn't want the job. (Sort of an augmented version of the SNL contract)
- appleflaxen 11y ago
  SNL?
  - throwaway049 11y ago
    A long term 'gold handcuffs' deal for new performers http://observer.com/1999/08/snl-s-killer-contract/ http://observer.com/1999/08/snl-s-killer-contract/

kearneyandy 11y ago

For some sources on Harrison Ford Variety claims 10 - 20 million http://variety.com/2015/film/news/harrison-ford-star-wars-pay-force-awakens-cast-1201666236/ http://variety.com/2015/film/news/harrison-ford-star-wars-pa... Sydney Morning Herald had an article says that it would be $34 million if it breaks $1 billion gross earnings (which is likely). http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/star-wars-the-force-awakens-pay-deal-for-harrison-ford-is-out-of-this-world-20151222-glsxx4.html http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/star-wars-the-for...

jrochkind1 11y ago

> Maybe it'll force Hollywood to pay actors far far less. Harrison Ford was paid somewhere between 10 and 25 million Probably a bad example, because the studio's investment in Harrison Ford in SW:TFA will surely be repaid many times over, and isn't really threatened by netflix.

jsmeaton 11y ago
Of course it will, because of really high ticket prices and they're providing a product that many people want. If ticket prices were lower though, Ford wouldn't be able to ask for that kind of money. Not many films can generate this kind of demand though, yet we're all stuck with high ticket prices for lower quality films.

LordKano 11y ago

I'm of the belief that the better actors are paid far too much The market decides these things. It's difficult to argue that there isn't enough profit on a movie that has grossed over 1.5 billion dollars in three weeks to pay A-list actors A-list salaries. A-list actors don't make that kind of money because movie studios are generous. They make it because their presence puts butts in seats. Sure, the "Star Wars" name would be enough to put butts in seats but without Ford, Fisher and Hamil, this movie would have made less money. If I'm not being forced to pay it, I don't care what someone else makes.

zanny 11y ago
Would the movie have lost more than the amount they paid him, though? I'm pretty sure they could have released a blank tape on the screen, called it Star Wars 7, and made several hundred million dollars. Its hard to approximate the amount of sales exclusively to the presence of a specific actor, versus the reviews, ratings, and social response to good acting.
- LordKano 11y ago
  Obviously, no one knows for sure but let's say that 1% of the people who went to see it would have opted out if the original stars hadn't returned... In three weeks, that is over 15 million dollars just where it's been released so far. Think about China and the rest of Asia. Think about on demand viewing and DVD/Blu-Ray. As I said, we don't know for sure but it's a pretty safe bet that Ford, Fisher and Hamil being a part of this movie will pay for itself in increased revenue.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
jsmeaton 11y ago
> The market decides these things Right, and I think the market is unfairly inflated at the moment, and has been for a long time. Movie ticket prices have more than doubled in the last ~ 10 years. The presence of streaming new blockbuster movies is likely to disrupt the traditional cinema if it is allowed to get off the ground. And that's basically the point I'm trying to make. If movies were to transition into the Steam model where the cost is brought down but has higher reach, the gross is going to go down, and so should the marketing and actor budgets of such films. > If I'm not being forced to pay it, I don't care what someone else makes. Yes, going to the cinema is optional, no one is forcing you to go. But if you want to see a movie within 3-6 months of release you have to pay the cinema ticket price. There is no other option. I don't care how much the actors make, I care how much I pay at the ticket box, which appears to be viciously increasing cycle of actor demands more -> prices go up -> more gross is made -> actor demands more. To account for this, studios are spending more and more on advertising to get people to actually go to the cinema, further driving ticket prices up. And it's the non blockbuster movies that are going to fail. Ticket price is $x regardless of the quality of the movie. The blockbuster budgets are going to price the smaller movies out. No one is going to pay $25 to see something they might enjoy but doesn't have the kind of budget to warrant a cinema viewing. Streaming services that offer these kinds of movies at release date I think will bring the whole scam crashing down.

macspoofing 11y ago

I'm not worried about actor salaries. Big budget epics cost lots of money to make outside of actor salaries because hundreds of professionals work on them for years, usually on location. I guess I like a world where a $300 million Lord of the Rings trilogy exists. It's not necessary but I like it.

mongrol 11y ago

Yeah you can. I was in a cinema last week in Maloolaba for $9. Brisbane has 3 low cost cinemas around the same price, one in Southbank in the city. Just avoid event cinemas and support your local indies.

rhizome 11y ago

You're directly funding the lifestyles of everybody involved in everything you buy. I don't see this as a negative. That said, the studio will probably get at least half of each of those $5, and I've known people who think absolutely nothing of renting movies for $5 multiple times per day, literally no cognitive difference between picking some $5 movie on iTunes and choosing another one on Netflix. Multiply that, e.g. 1% * $global, and pretty soon you're talking about real money for everybody. $10-25million is nothing to pay an actor with a main part in a movie that may make $5 billion dollars for the studio.

lorenzhs 11y ago

Wow, $43 (or even $23) is crazy. I just checked, in my city (in Germany) Star Wars costs 13€ (AU$20), and that's the English version in 3D with shutter glasses. "Normal" movies (no 3D, no excess length) are 7-8€ (AU$11-12.50). That's like... half of what you pay. Is Australia generally that expensive? :O

gambiting 11y ago
Just checked in Poland, and 3D version in English(with subtitles) is 25PLN per regular ticket, so around ~6.2USD. IMAX version is 28PLN so about 7USD.
davegardner 11y ago
$43 is for a VIP type experience - smaller number of big reclining arm chairs, food and drinks delivered to your seat throughout the movie, etc. Similar to the difference between an economy and business class seat on an airline. At the big-chain theatre that I saw Star Wars, the "standard" price for a non-3D movie is $19.50. However it's very easy to get discounted prices for any movie. I paid $12.50 for my ticket, booked it online a few minutes before I left home. I'm quite sure that the extra dollars paid for the $43 movie ticket was going to the movie theatre, not Hollywood.